 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
 Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 1:17 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Scorp wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
You have chosen the low road in trying to infer that I don’t understand the issue… |
No, Trinity. This last post proves you don't understand Evolution. Anyone who understands Evolution would not ask to know the name of an ancestor of any species, regardless of its traits. It is lineage that produces common ancestors but you can't seem to grasp that. Therefore, you keep asking the same inane question again and again. |
Really... so it is inane to suggest that humans and chimps share a common ape like ancestor? You know... I'm starting to think that perhaps you don't know as much as you would like to think you do... 
| Quote: | | Quote: | ..... If the platypus does share the same DNA as aves and reptiles, then there must be an ancestor, somewhere, that would lead you to believe this… if you believe it without being able to cite an ancestor, then you are operating outside the constructs of science and entered into a belief systems that permeates virtually every facet of science today.
Cite the ancestor please. |
There you go again. If the platypus has the features of mammals, and birds, it obviously has more than one common ancestor with each of the other species and thus has unusual and prominent features of each lineage. |
OK.. lets try to narrow it down then.. can we? Was the ancestor a reptile? Ave? Mammal? What? I'm not asking you to provide the exact species for crying out loud... if you are going to assert this then get in the ball park at least.
| Quote: | | If you don't believe that Evolution is giving you the information you need, where do you suggest we look to find the answer, outside of Evolution? |
I am not asking Evolution to provide me any answers... as it is an obviously flawed theory... I'm only asking those who assert that if it is a viable theory, and that the platypus somehow demonstrates its veracity, to tell me how this mammal posses developed... evolved... avian and reptilian traits when these were developed completely separately from the mammalian class.
Also... this is the 6th post without a cite... just FYI. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Scorp
Goldfish
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | I am not asking Evolution to provide me any answers... as it is an obviously flawed theory... |
The Theory of Evolution is flawed compared to what other theory? What is your yardstick?
| Quote: | | I'm only asking those who assert that if it is a viable theory, and that the platypus somehow demonstrates its veracity, to tell me how this mammal posses developed... evolved... avian and reptilian traits when these were developed completely separately from the mammalian class. |
Where did you get your information that the Platypus developed (do you mean evolved?) completely separately from the Mammalian class?
| Quote: | | Also... this is the 6th post without a cite... just FYI. |
I don't know of anyone with a lick of sense who would ask the exact same question six times when the answer was given six different ways, six different times. But you did just that. Six times. I wouldn't brag about that if I was you.
At any rate, it appears that the Platypus really has you stumped, doesn't it. Let's go back a bit further then.
The last Universal Common Ancestor is LUCA. After that more and more common ancestors replicated and reproduced across the globe. 99% of them became extinct the rest passed on thier genes to you and the Chimp as well as other forms of life.
Now you have a name. But does it really make you any smarter?
Since I cannot offer you yet another informative site because I have not been here for seven days yet nor reached my ten post requirement, if you cut and paste the following and google it, you will learn more about common ancestry.
GOOGLE: "What is the Last Universal Common Ancestor" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5847
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | The study finds that the platypus, a mammal, shares some the same unique DNA (genes) as aves and reptiles do. |
Cite, please. Where does it say they share the same unique DNA?
Here's a better news link on the subject.
| Quote: | | The platypus represents the earliest offshoot of the mammalian lineage some 166 million years ago from primitive ancestors that had features of both mammals and reptiles. "What is unique about the platypus is that it has retained a large overlap between two very different classifications, while later mammals lost the features of reptiles," says Wes Warren, Ph.D., an assistant professor of genetics, who led the project. |
Nowhere is it ever claimed that platypus share "unique DNA" with birds or reptiles. Derivative reptile genes, yes, but only because (as it appears) the platypus is the descendant of a sort of transition between mammals and reptiles.
Nowhere is it claimed that platypus have avian DNA, only avian features. Like how their X chromosome resembles the Z chromosome of avians. So I'm not sure where you got that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daviddale3
Kitten
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 138
Location: georgia
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Scorp,
| Quote: | There you go again. If the platypus has the features of mammals, and birds, it obviously has more than one common ancestor with each of the other species and thus has unusual and prominent features of each lineage.
|
How do YOU come to that conclusion? YOU state that it obviously has more than one common ancestor, yet you cannot identify the ancestors. What independent source do YOU use to confirm the findings of this study? What I mean by independent is something to support theses findings that are not apart of the study.
YOU are making this claim and YOU have to back this up with something besides the general sayings of the TOE which seems to be the common answer to Trinity's question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daviddale3
Kitten
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 138
Location: georgia
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I have looked over this thread, there is one obvious item that is seems to be the core issue (to me at least). It is simply this, Trinity and I just want some evidence for the conclusion, not just the pad answers that have been given.
The reason that no one has even attempted to disclose the name of the ancestor is simply because they do not know. They cannot identify how, when, or how long ago these things transpirred.
The problem is this, that is what is needed to show that the inference of evolution is justifiable. What natural law REQUIRES an organism that has similar traits to have a common ancestor. Is it the Law of Gravity, or the Law of cause and Effect, or etc..., and the TOE is not the answer. That would be circular at best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scorp
Goldfish
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daviddale3 wrote: | Scorp,
| Quote: | There you go again. If the platypus has the features of mammals, and birds, it obviously has more than one common ancestor with each of the other species and thus has unusual and prominent features of each lineage.
|
How do YOU come to that conclusion? YOU state that it obviously has more than one common ancestor, yet you cannot identify the ancestors. |
Who said I couldn't identify the ancestors? I told you the first common ancestor was LUCA. It is through LUCA that we share DNA with the platypus.
| Quote: | | What independent source do YOU use to confirm the findings of this study? What I mean by independent is something to support theses findings that are not apart of the study. |
What type of findings does one acquire outside of scientific research?
| Quote: | | YOU are making this claim and YOU have to back this up with something besides the general sayings of the TOE which seems to be the common answer to Trinity's question. |
What part of this study are you challenging? And what are your credentials to challenge scientists at the level of directorship for major Universities such as Washington University in St. Louis, like Dr. Wilson, leading an international team?
", a team of scientists has determined the platypus's entire genetic code. And right down to its DNA, it turns out, the platypus continues to strain credulity, bearing genetic modules that are in turn mammalian, reptilian and avian.
There are genes for egg laying -- evidence of the animals' reptilian roots. Genes for making milk, which the platypus does in mammalian style despite not having nipples (the young nurse through the abdominal skin). Genes for making venom, which the animal stores in its legs. And there are five times more sex-determining chromosomes than scientists know what to do with.
"It's such a wacky organism," said Richard Wilson, director of the genome center at Washington University in St. Louis, who led the two-year international effort, described online Wednesday in the journal Nature."
(see Journal Nature May 28th)
The Platypus is on an isolated branch of the evolutionary tree, but the fact that it branches from other species which carried the avian and reptilian genes shows common ancestry. If you don't understand evolution, nothing will make sense to you or Trinity scientifically.
I suggest you both learn the ToE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scorp wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | I am not asking Evolution to provide me any answers... as it is an obviously flawed theory... |
The Theory of Evolution is flawed compared to what other theory? What is your yardstick? |
Reality, observational science, empirical evidence, statistical probabilities.... what is yours?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I'm only asking those who assert that if it is a viable theory, and that the platypus somehow demonstrates its veracity, to tell me how this mammal posses developed... evolved... avian and reptilian traits when these were developed completely separately from the mammalian class. |
Where did you get your information that the Platypus developed (do you mean evolved?) completely separately from the Mammalian class? |
Is that what I wrote Scorp... can you re-read what I wrote and tell me where I state that the Platypus developed separately from the mammalian class? I wrote that it posses avian and reptilian traits that developed separately from the mammalian class. Traits for aves and reptiles developed outside of mammalian evolution. I’m not sure how you can deny this. You are ignoring this glaring problem for some reason.... and then trying to change the meaning of what I wrote to somehow deflect the attention away... why?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Also... this is the 6th post without a cite... just FYI. |
I don't know of anyone with a lick of sense who would ask the exact same question six times when the answer was given six different ways, six different times. But you did just that. Six times. I wouldn't brag about that if I was you.
| Quote: | | At any rate, it appears that the Platypus really has you stumped, doesn't it. Let's go back a bit further then. |
|
No more than the English language has you stumped...  This is number 7 BTW.... LUCA is a non-answer.
| Quote: | The last Universal Common Ancestor is LUCA. After that more and more common ancestors replicated and reproduced across the globe. 99% of them became extinct the rest passed on thier genes to you and the Chimp as well as other forms of life.
Now you have a name. But does it really make you any smarter? |
LUCA.... Italian? A universal... what.. is it.... common ancestor. Was that an amphibian... what?
This is a non-answer if I have ever seen one BTW.
Did LUCA have avian, reptilian, and mammalian genes then? If this is the case, using current theory.... did the reptile and mammal evolve separately from an amphibian... concurrently.... what? The tree splits here and you refuse to address this problem.... how does a reptile evolve reptilian specific genes.... a mammalian evolve mammalian specific genes... and then they all seem to get together. Now, the only logical explanation I can think of is that the amphibian already possessed these evolved genes or... a platypus is a completely separate class of animal. A little explanation would be nice... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scorp
Goldfish
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Scorp wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | I am not asking Evolution to provide me any answers... as it is an obviously flawed theory... |
The Theory of Evolution is flawed compared to what other theory? What is your yardstick? |
Reality, observational science, empirical evidence, statistical probabilities.... what is yours? |
You make no sense. Reality, observational science, empirical evidence and statistical probabilities are not theories.
The Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Relativity and the theory of gravity are theories. Once again, you said that the Theory of Evolution is flawed. I am asking you flawed compared to what other theory? By what other scientific Theory do you measure the fallibility of Theory of Evolution?
Have we hit a bump in the road here? Do you have an answer, Trinity or have I overestimated your ability to discuss the subject at this level? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daviddale3
Kitten
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 138
Location: georgia
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Scrop,
| Quote: | | Who said I couldn't identify the ancestors? I told you the first common ancestor was LUCA. It is through LUCA that we share DNA with the platypus. |
Trinity answered this,
| Quote: | LUCA.... Italian? Rolling Eyes A universal... what.. is it.... common ancestor. Was that an amphibian... what?
This is a non-answer if I have ever seen one BTW.
Did LUCA have avian, reptilian, and mammalian genes then? If this is the case, using current theory.... did the reptile and mammal evolve separately from an amphibian... concurrently.... what? The tree splits here and you refuse to address this problem.... how does a reptile evolve reptilian specific genes.... a mammalian evolve mammalian specific genes... and then they all seem to get together. Now, the only logical explanation I can think of is that the amphibian already possessed these evolved genes or... a platypus is a completely separate class of animal. A little explanation would be nice... |
| Quote: | | What type of findings does one acquire outside of scientific research? |
One such as this,
Rock paintings found in the South Aferican bush in 1991 were dated using radiocarbon dating at Oxford University. They were dated at around 1,200 years old. However, publicity of the find attracted the attention of Joan Ahrens who recognized the paintings as being produced by her in art class and later stolen from her garden by vandels. The issue that this example shows is that mistakes can and do happen and they can only be discovered where the results can be checked by an external method. Where there is no external method, the results can not be verified. What such external methods can be employed in this case? Maybe you have an answer.
| Quote: | And what are your credentials to challenge scientists at the level of directorship for major Universities such as Washington University in St. Louis, like Dr. Wilson, leading an international team?
|
I do not have any, yet just because a group of people say it is so means nothing in the realm of truth. The eugenics program is a prime example of such a case, in which the leading scientits from major universities all agreed that this was the correct passage. Yet now we realize just how wrong they were.
| Quote: | | What part of this study are you challenging? |
The paradigm behind it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scorp
Goldfish
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daviddale3 wrote: | Scrop,
| Quote: | | Who said I couldn't identify the ancestors? I told you the first common ancestor was LUCA. It is through LUCA that we share DNA with the platypus. |
Trinity answered this,
| Quote: | LUCA.... Italian? Rolling Eyes A universal... what.. is it.... common ancestor. Was that an amphibian... what?
This is a non-answer if I have ever seen one BTW.
Did LUCA have avian, reptilian, and mammalian genes then? If this is the case, using current theory.... did the reptile and mammal evolve separately from an amphibian... concurrently.... what? The tree splits here and you refuse to address this problem.... how does a reptile evolve reptilian specific genes.... a mammalian evolve mammalian specific genes... and then they all seem to get together. Now, the only logical explanation I can think of is that the amphibian already possessed these evolved genes or... a platypus is a completely separate class of animal. A little explanation would be nice... |
| Quote: | | What type of findings does one acquire outside of scientific research? |
One such as this,
Rock paintings found in the South Aferican bush in 1991 were dated using radiocarbon dating at Oxford University. They were dated at around 1,200 years old. However, publicity of the find attracted the attention of Joan Ahrens who recognized the paintings as being produced by her in art class and later stolen from her garden by vandels. The issue that this example shows is that mistakes can and do happen and they can only be discovered where the results can be checked by an external method. Where there is no external method, the results can not be verified. What such external methods can be employed in this case? Maybe you have an answer. |
I think that any archeologist can look at the composition of the paint and detect whether it is ancient or modern.
Further, unless a rock contains organic material, it has no carbon 14 and cannot be carbon dated.
Finally, the rock being taken from Ms. Ahern's garden in Cape Town out to the African Bush and placed in a cave would not accomplish anything except to profit from fraud.
The people who committed fraud with the ossuary box are now on trial. This type of fraud is a thriving business.
| Quote: | | Quote: | And what are your credentials to challenge scientists at the level of directorship for major Universities such as Washington University in St. Louis, like Dr. Wilson, leading an international team?
|
I do not have any, yet just because a group of people say it is so means nothing in the realm of truth. |
Then where would you seek more reliable information? I'd like to know.
| Quote: | | The eugenics program is a prime example of such a case, in which the leading scientits from major universities all agreed that this was the correct passage. Yet now we realize just how wrong they were. |
What leading scientists from what leading Universities? When we consider random mutation, the common DNA of every race and the concept of nature vs. nurture, a child can clearly see that eugenics is pseudo-science.
I would hate to think that I know more than "leading scientists from leading Universities".
| Quote: | | Quote: | | What part of this study are you challenging? |
The paradigm behind it. |
Can you define what you would call the paradigm? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scorp wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | Scorp wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | I am not asking Evolution to provide me any answers... as it is an obviously flawed theory... |
The Theory of Evolution is flawed compared to what other theory? What is your yardstick? |
Reality, observational science, empirical evidence, statistical probabilities.... what is yours? |
You make no sense. |
I make no sense??? Are you kidding? I ask you to explain how DNA from aves and reptiles shows up in mammal... your retort is nothing more than the party line "common ancestor" and that is somehow suppose to solve it?
You asked what my yardstick was... I essentially stated it was the use of our senses.... not some dogmatically taught philosophy that falls apart in discussions like this... yet... you still cling to this pathetic theory... inferring that I somehow need to come up with an alternative... an alternitive to reality... observational science, empiracal evidence, and statistical probabilities.
If I did... then it really wouldn't be science now would it? But, you don't seem to have a problem with ToE violating the same...
| Quote: | | Reality, observational science, empirical evidence and statistical probabilities are not theories. |
You are absolutely right... but they are most certainly applications used in science. ToE seems to ignore these principles... and wants us to believe that… well… somehow ave DNA and reptile DNA showed up in mammal without producing one thread, shred, or ounce of empirical evidence supporting this supposition… and you tell me I need to try to provide an alternative theory? I could say a pink unicorn created this animal and still maintain as much scientific creditability as ToE… as both have an equal amount of of supporting evidence.
| Quote: | | Once again, you said that the Theory of Evolution is flawed. I am asking you flawed compared to what other theory? By what other scientific Theory do you measure the fallibility of Theory of Evolution? |
This is where we indeed hit that perceived bump you cited... I have pointed out where your theory is flawed... and you won't even try to defend it... your only defense it... so, at least we know god didn't-do-it. It is flawed because it steps outside of observational science… rational thought… and statistical analysis.
I believe God created… but… by stating that… I’m not being scientific. Why, because science is only about materialism… and it will not allow for any type of supernatural inference… no matter how obvious it is.
The bottom line is that ToE is no more about science than Star Trek was about reality… both contain some certain realistic principles… but quickly obfuscate with the truth as they trips around the galaxy trying to get the rest of us to check our brains at the door and enjoy the show. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oops... almost forgot. That was post number 8... containing only more rhetoric... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scorp
Goldfish
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: |
I ask you to explain how DNA from aves and reptiles shows up in mammal... your retort is nothing more than the party line "common ancestor" and that is somehow suppose to solve it? |
Yes. Do you have a superior Theory to put forth? Let's hear it.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Reality, observational science, empirical evidence and statistical probabilities are not theories. |
You are absolutely right... but they are most certainly applications used in science. |
And your point is? I asked for another Theory that challenged Evolution. Do you have one?
| Quote: | | ToE seems to ignore these principles... and wants us to believe that… well… somehow ave DNA and reptile DNA showed up in mammal without producing one thread, shred, or ounce of empirical evidence supporting this supposition.. |
The Platypus has the same DNA as birds and reptiles and therefore shares some traits with them. Are you ignoring this, or just having a difficult time accepting it?
| Quote: | | I believe God created… but… by stating that… I’m not being scientific. |
No, but you are being honest. I believe God is also responsible for creation but He has only given us the material world with which to seek scientific information. Anything outside of the natural world is spiritual and requires faith.
You've voiced many opinions in your last post. I omitted them because your opinions mean squat to me. I want facts and sources to support your views, not one diatribe after another.
Thanks. It was interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scorp wrote: | | Trinity wrote: | | ToE seems to ignore these principles... and wants us to believe that… well… somehow ave DNA and reptile DNA showed up in mammal without producing one thread, shred, or ounce of empirical evidence supporting this supposition.. |
The Platypus has the same DNA as birds and reptiles and therefore shares some traits with them. Are you ignoring this, or just having a difficult time accepting it? |
Wait a second... weren't you just excoriating me few posts ago for using traits instead of genes when discussing DNA... No biggy... I've gotten use to your double speak already.
I'm not ignoring this at all. I've repeatedly pointed it out to you... asking you to explain how this can happen using current theory.... pleading with you to produce an observable common ancestor or transitional of any typel demonstrating the veracity of your position. Instead... you want to play games asking who's daddy is bigger and better... while I try to keep you on task. Current theory demonstrates a split in the ancestry here.... current theory demonstrates that reptilian and avian traits developed separately from the amphibian ancestor. Current theory also demonstrates that mammals developed directly from amphibians. Therefore... for the love of life here... how does a mammal posses avian and reptilian traits without sharing a common ancestor?
If you are going to cite common ancestry... using science (not rhetoric) tell me how this happens.
You know just as well as Bouncer did... and I do... that this does not happen... this is exactly why you are obfuscating and trying to divert the topic of this thread in other directions while deriding those who point out the fallacy of your theory as those who don't understand it.
Buddy... I understand your theory better than you do... that much is obvious to everyone participating in this thread. This is exactly why Bouncer bowed out and FFT and Ana ain't got a word to say.
Now... common ancestor... cite it please. If you can't, explain how ave and reptilian DNA, developed after the split off from the amphibian occurred, winds up in a mammal. If you can't, all of your rhetoric, intellectual snobbery, pompousness is nothing but smoke. If you want to engage in a discussion and discuss a topic... you are going to have to start producing qualifiable answers... not the unsubstantiated dogma that is taught in our schools.
That was Sir…post number 9… you going for number 10… or you actually going to try to back up your answers?
Last edited by Trinity1 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:11 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scorp
Goldfish
Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Scorp wrote: | | The Platypus has the same DNA as birds and reptiles and therefore shares some traits with them. Are you ignoring this, or just having a difficult time accepting it? |
Wait a second... weren't you just excoriating me few posts ago for using traits instead of genes when discussing DNA... |
Read what I said again. Or get someone who has better reading comprehension to explain what I said to you.
Then maybe we'll talk again.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
